The Court of Appeal has refused applications by occupants of two Dublin properties to extend the time for appealing injunctions obtained by Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC. The injunctions required people occupying 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 7, and 31 Richmond Avenue, Dublin 3, to surrender possession and hand over keys and access devices. The court did not decide the separate attachment and committal proceedings against occupants, which were awaiting a High Court judgment.
The applications concerned injunction orders made by the High Court on 25 November 2020. The Court of Appeal heard the extension applications together on 24 June 2021. The occupants sought more time to appeal, permission to rely on new evidence and a stay. The court said no special leave was needed to adduce new evidence in an interlocutory appeal, but refused the applications to extend time.
The applicants’ solicitor said he represented 20 adults. Apart from two occupants who had already appealed within time, the applicants said they had not received notice of the original proceedings. Their submissions cited language and communication difficulties, pandemic restrictions and their focus on opposing Pepper’s attachment and committal motions. Pepper disputed their account and said it had repeatedly sent correspondence seeking the occupants’ identities and documents supporting any right to occupy.
The court found that the applicants had not shown that they formed an intention to appeal within the relevant period. It noted that the solicitor gave different accounts of when that intention arose and that the applicants had filed affidavits for the committal proceedings but no personal affidavits addressing when they decided to appeal. It also found no mistake sufficient to explain the delay.
The court rejected the proposed argument that the occupants had shown valid tenancies binding on Pepper. The mortgage facility letter allowed tenancies only on specified conditions, including a written agreement and delivery of a certified copy to the lender. The court found no evidence that the applicants’ tenancies met those conditions. It also concluded that people who entered tenancies after a 2008 possession order had no arguable basis to say those tenancies bound Pepper.
On service and alleged non-disclosure, the court considered whether there might be arguable appeal grounds but concluded that the balance of justice still favoured refusing more time. It said the High Court had directed how documents were to be left at the properties and that the applicants had not first applied there to set aside the injunction orders. The facility letter had been among the papers, but the court said counsel should have specifically drawn attention to material matters; it found no deliberate non-disclosure and considered the letter’s relevance limited. The court refused the applications. It made no determination in these motions on the merits of the pending committal proceedings.